The first benchmark of an AMD Summit Ridge (Zen) CPU got leaked. At 3Ghz, it is 4x faster than a 4Ghz i7-6700k. Not even a 20 core Intel Xeon can match it.. AMD may finally take the crown back from Intel (:
@magicalclick: The 8 core desktop variant has a 95w tdp, FinFET should keep the temps low, and it'll be available next year in APU's with AMD Polaris GPU's using HBM. APU's with 16 Zen cores and Greenland GPU w/ HBM have been confirmed by AMD engineers.
Wow, I thought Zen was supposed to have Haswell-level performance (which still would have been good enough to be competitive)? This is great news if true, perhaps we can once again see reasonably priced processors in the near future.
@magicalclick: The 8 core desktop variant has a 95w tdp, FinFET should keep the temps low, and it'll be available next year in APU's with AMD Polaris GPU's using HBM. APU's with 16 Zen cores and Greenland GPU w/ HBM have been confirmed by AMD engineers.
Nintendo should have waited for a late 2017 release to get such an APU for the NX.
@magicalclick: The 8 core desktop variant has a 95w tdp, FinFET should keep the temps low, and it'll be available next year in APU's with AMD Polaris GPU's using HBM. APU's with 16 Zen cores and Greenland GPU w/ HBM have been confirmed by AMD engineers.
Nintendo should have waited for a late 2017 release to get such an APU for the NX.
Too big and power-hungry for a console. Possibly too expensive as well, though I know that many of you think that Nintendo making a $500 console is worth it if it's a super-powerhouse. :/
All the same, since AMD can use Samsung's foundries, it's about time they got to use their brain power to design and develop CPUs that are relevant and modern again. It kind of sucked seeing Intel uncontested simply because they were a process lower than AMD at every step of the way.
@magicalclick: The 8 core desktop variant has a 95w tdp, FinFET should keep the temps low, and it'll be available next year in APU's with AMD Polaris GPU's using HBM. APU's with 16 Zen cores and Greenland GPU w/ HBM have been confirmed by AMD engineers.
Nintendo should have waited for a late 2017 release to get such an APU for the NX.
Too big and power-hungry for a console. Possibly too expensive as well, though I know that many of you think that Nintendo making a $500 console is worth it if it's a super-powerhouse. :/
I'm not saying Zen at 3GHZ, more like 2GHZ.
Yes, I want the NX to be a powerhouse. Nintendo can't just release another Wii U like console and expect success.
What would benefit Nintendo by releasing another underpowered console three years after the PS4/XB1 were released? The NX needs to impress gamers outside of the Nintendo fanbase. Nintendo fans alone can't make the NX a success, the Wii U has proved this.
Nintendo needs to go big or go home with the NX. If its just a glorified XB1 with some stupid gimmicky controller then its not going to sell well.
@magicalclick: The 8 core desktop variant has a 95w tdp, FinFET should keep the temps low, and it'll be available next year in APU's with AMD Polaris GPU's using HBM. APU's with 16 Zen cores and Greenland GPU w/ HBM have been confirmed by AMD engineers.
Nintendo should have waited for a late 2017 release to get such an APU for the NX.
Too big and power-hungry for a console. Possibly too expensive as well, though I know that many of you think that Nintendo making a $500 console is worth it if it's a super-powerhouse. :/
I'm not saying Zen at 3GHZ, more like 2GHZ.
The same problems apply. There's a reason why Jaguars are in the current consoles.
Nintendo should have waited for a late 2017 release to get such an APU for the NX.
Too big and power-hungry for a console. Possibly too expensive as well, though I know that many of you think that Nintendo making a $500 console is worth it if it's a super-powerhouse. :/
I'm not saying Zen at 3GHZ, more like 2GHZ.
The same problems apply. There's a reason why Jaguars are in the current consoles.
Nintendo should take a hit per unit sold. Not saying PS3 level hit, but a hit nonetheless, just to insure that the NX can be as powerful as possible within reason.
Like I said before if the NX is just a XB1, or PS4 with a gimmicky controller its gonna flop just like the Wii U. If someone wants a PS4 level console in late 2016 then they will just buy a PS4 for cheaper. It makes no sense for the NX not to be at least 2x more capable than the competition.
Not to mention you have the PS4K potentially getting announced at E3. That's gonna really hurt the NX's reveal if the PS4K offers more value for around the same price. NX is not likely to have a 4K Blu-ray player.
I expect Zen to be better than Intel's chips since they've been coasting for years, but 3-4x an 6/4 core i7 is obviously BS
This.
No longer is there a 2x or even 1.5x increase in perf over the previous gen in terms of CPUs anymore. I expect them to be (hopefully) on par with Skylake i7s. AMD has been so far behind for years. Would be good for them to catch up to get Intel to stop being lazy.
@magicalclick: The 8 core desktop variant has a 95w tdp, FinFET should keep the temps low, and it'll be available next year in APU's with AMD Polaris GPU's using HBM. APU's with 16 Zen cores and Greenland GPU w/ HBM have been confirmed by AMD engineers.
Nintendo should have waited for a late 2017 release to get such an APU for the NX.
Too big and power-hungry for a console. Possibly too expensive as well, though I know that many of you think that Nintendo making a $500 console is worth it if it's a super-powerhouse. :/
AMD ZEN replaces Puma+ CPU cores. Sony would need four ZEN "Basilisk" cores with 8 threads to replace 8 Jaguar core with 8 threads.
TSMC 20 nm ARM Cortex A57 "Amur" was cancelled.
ZEN scales to 32 cores per socket hence very wide SKU options for AMD.
Nintendo should have waited for a late 2017 release to get such an APU for the NX.
Too big and power-hungry for a console. Possibly too expensive as well, though I know that many of you think that Nintendo making a $500 console is worth it if it's a super-powerhouse. :/
I'm not saying Zen at 3GHZ, more like 2GHZ.
The same problems apply. There's a reason why Jaguars are in the current consoles.
Nintendo should take a hit per unit sold. Not saying PS3 level hit, but a hit nonetheless, just to insure that the NX can be as powerful as possible within reason.
Like I said before if the NX is just a XB1, or PS4 with a gimmicky controller its gonna flop just like the Wii U. If someone wants a PS4 level console in late 2016 then they will just buy a PS4 for cheaper. It makes no sense for the NX not to be at least 2x more capable than the competition.
Not to mention you have the PS4K potentially getting announced at E3. That's gonna really hurt the NX's reveal if the PS4K offers more value for around the same price. NX is not likely to have a 4K Blu-ray player.
You're making a lot of assumptions on pricing here... Anyway, I don't see how being 4 years late with a $400+ console that you're losing $50-100 on while also being much larger than other consoles will help sales very much. I really don't know why so many of you feel that power is the #1 thing people buy consoles for. What would this powerful, expensive console offer over anything? You can spend less on a PS4, or you can get more games with a PS4k. It doesn't really work out either way, and their best bet would be to target a $300 price point imo.
I expect Zen to be better than Intel's chips since they've been coasting for years, but 3-4x an 6/4 core i7 is obviously BS
It would be quite sad if it turned out to be worse in gaming vs skylake as it should be able to tie with intels next line for them to stand a chance..
@dynamitecop said:
@lostrib said:
Don't really care until I see how it stacks up in gaming benchmarks
Yeah that's the biggest thing, a 6700k wrecks my 2600k at so many things, yet for gaming, performance is almost identical hence me not upgrading.
Ye my gaming PC still sporting that too, been way more performance per money to just upgrade gpu's(considering id need new mobo+ram too), I do finally plan on letting 2600k go once thew new ones from amd/intel arrive
Don't really care until I see how it stacks up in gaming benchmarks
Yeah that's the biggest thing, a 6700k wrecks my 2600k at so many things, yet for gaming, performance is almost identical hence me not upgrading.
Ye my gaming PC still sporting that too, been way more performance per money to just upgrade gpu's(considering id need new mobo+ram too), I do finally plan on letting 2600k go once thew new ones from amd/intel arrive
Yeah, I've seen no reason to "upgrade" it yet, most of the options available have been more of a side shift than anything, they've been piggybacking their architecture too long.
Going to see what the next generation of Intel's have to offer, if it's good enough I'll move to an octo-core and then pick up the flagship Polaris GPU to replace my dual 290X's.
The same problems apply. There's a reason why Jaguars are in the current consoles.
Nintendo should take a hit per unit sold. Not saying PS3 level hit, but a hit nonetheless, just to insure that the NX can be as powerful as possible within reason.
Like I said before if the NX is just a XB1, or PS4 with a gimmicky controller its gonna flop just like the Wii U. If someone wants a PS4 level console in late 2016 then they will just buy a PS4 for cheaper. It makes no sense for the NX not to be at least 2x more capable than the competition.
Not to mention you have the PS4K potentially getting announced at E3. That's gonna really hurt the NX's reveal if the PS4K offers more value for around the same price. NX is not likely to have a 4K Blu-ray player.
You're making a lot of assumptions on pricing here... Anyway, I don't see how being 4 years late with a $400+ console that you're losing $50-100 on while also being much larger than other consoles will help sales very much. I really don't know why so many of you feel that power is the #1 thing people buy consoles for. What would this powerful, expensive console offer over anything? You can spend less on a PS4, or you can get more games with a PS4k. It doesn't really work out either way, and their best bet would be to target a $300 price point imo.
The NX can easily be more powerful than the PS4 at a $349.99 price tag, even $299.99 if Nintendo doesn't mind breaking even, or taking a semi loss initially per unit.
Original Wii to Wii U proves that an underpowered Nintendo console with lackluster support can only sell well if the gimmick attracts the mainstream audience.
Originally Wii's success was a fluke, not the norm. Nintendo should prioritize on releasing a capable console, at an attractive price, with solid third party support and AAA Nintendo exclusives ready at launch. Also, any gimmick should be optional, not forced on the user. Banking on another gimmick to sell your console is too risky, especially considering the Wii U's failure to appeal to the mainstream.
The same problems apply. There's a reason why Jaguars are in the current consoles.
Nintendo should take a hit per unit sold. Not saying PS3 level hit, but a hit nonetheless, just to insure that the NX can be as powerful as possible within reason.
Like I said before if the NX is just a XB1, or PS4 with a gimmicky controller its gonna flop just like the Wii U. If someone wants a PS4 level console in late 2016 then they will just buy a PS4 for cheaper. It makes no sense for the NX not to be at least 2x more capable than the competition.
Not to mention you have the PS4K potentially getting announced at E3. That's gonna really hurt the NX's reveal if the PS4K offers more value for around the same price. NX is not likely to have a 4K Blu-ray player.
You're making a lot of assumptions on pricing here... Anyway, I don't see how being 4 years late with a $400+ console that you're losing $50-100 on while also being much larger than other consoles will help sales very much. I really don't know why so many of you feel that power is the #1 thing people buy consoles for. What would this powerful, expensive console offer over anything? You can spend less on a PS4, or you can get more games with a PS4k. It doesn't really work out either way, and their best bet would be to target a $300 price point imo.
The NX can easily be more powerful than the PS4 at a $349.99 price tag, even $299.99 if Nintendo doesn't mind breaking even, or taking a semi loss initially per unit.
Original Wii to Wii U proves that an underpowered Nintendo console with lackluster support can only sell well if the gimmick attracts the mainstream audience.
Originally Wii's success was a fluke, not the norm. Nintendo should prioritize on releasing a capable console, at an attractive price, with solid third party support and AAA Nintendo exclusives ready at launch. Also, any gimmick should be optional, not forced on the user.
Sure, but I disagree that matching/slightly beating PS4 would be underpowered, at least in the same sense as Wii and Wii U were. And no, it's not possible to double PS4's power at $350 without a huge loss per unit. If that were the case, XBox One would be $250 by now since they rally want to catch up to PS4.
Nintendo should take a hit per unit sold. Not saying PS3 level hit, but a hit nonetheless, just to insure that the NX can be as powerful as possible within reason.
Like I said before if the NX is just a XB1, or PS4 with a gimmicky controller its gonna flop just like the Wii U. If someone wants a PS4 level console in late 2016 then they will just buy a PS4 for cheaper. It makes no sense for the NX not to be at least 2x more capable than the competition.
Not to mention you have the PS4K potentially getting announced at E3. That's gonna really hurt the NX's reveal if the PS4K offers more value for around the same price. NX is not likely to have a 4K Blu-ray player.
You're making a lot of assumptions on pricing here... Anyway, I don't see how being 4 years late with a $400+ console that you're losing $50-100 on while also being much larger than other consoles will help sales very much. I really don't know why so many of you feel that power is the #1 thing people buy consoles for. What would this powerful, expensive console offer over anything? You can spend less on a PS4, or you can get more games with a PS4k. It doesn't really work out either way, and their best bet would be to target a $300 price point imo.
The NX can easily be more powerful than the PS4 at a $349.99 price tag, even $299.99 if Nintendo doesn't mind breaking even, or taking a semi loss initially per unit.
Original Wii to Wii U proves that an underpowered Nintendo console with lackluster support can only sell well if the gimmick attracts the mainstream audience.
Originally Wii's success was a fluke, not the norm. Nintendo should prioritize on releasing a capable console, at an attractive price, with solid third party support and AAA Nintendo exclusives ready at launch. Also, any gimmick should be optional, not forced on the user.
Sure, but I disagree that matching/slightly beating PS4 would be underpowered, at least in the same sense as Wii and Wii U were. And no, it's not possible to double PS4's power at $350 without a huge loss per unit. If that were the case, XBox One would be $250 by now since they rally want to catch up to PS4.
Name me another console besides the original Wii that was successful while being only about as powerful as the previous generation consoles. Remember the NX is going to be a 9th generation console, not 8th generation.
That's actually a rhetorical question because no such console exists outside the original Wii. Here's a list of the top selling consoles per generation.
Atari 2600 = More powerful than Maganvox Odyssey
NES = More powerful than all 2nd gen consoles.
SNES = More Powerful than all 3rd generation consoles.
PS1 = More powerful than all 4th generation consoles.
PS2 = More powerful than every 5th generation console.
Wii = Somewhere between GC and Xbox capability wise.
PS4 = More powerful than every 7th gen console.
As you can see finding success during a new generation with previous generation power only worked once. The NX isn't going to be more successful than the Wii U unless it has a WiiMote level gimmick that attracts the mainstream, or it has hardware capabilities that are noticeably superior to 8th gen consoles.
Now if Nintendo is going to market the NX as a secondary console then it needs to be priced accordingly. I think $199.99 - $249.99 would be a reasonable price point for a Nintendo delivery system, but even then I don't see it selling more than 20 - 25 million units. And no I don't think 20 - 25 million units sold per generation going forward is adequate enough to sustain a console business on.
Nintendo should take a hit per unit sold. Not saying PS3 level hit, but a hit nonetheless, just to insure that the NX can be as powerful as possible within reason.
Like I said before if the NX is just a XB1, or PS4 with a gimmicky controller its gonna flop just like the Wii U. If someone wants a PS4 level console in late 2016 then they will just buy a PS4 for cheaper. It makes no sense for the NX not to be at least 2x more capable than the competition.
Not to mention you have the PS4K potentially getting announced at E3. That's gonna really hurt the NX's reveal if the PS4K offers more value for around the same price. NX is not likely to have a 4K Blu-ray player.
You're making a lot of assumptions on pricing here... Anyway, I don't see how being 4 years late with a $400+ console that you're losing $50-100 on while also being much larger than other consoles will help sales very much. I really don't know why so many of you feel that power is the #1 thing people buy consoles for. What would this powerful, expensive console offer over anything? You can spend less on a PS4, or you can get more games with a PS4k. It doesn't really work out either way, and their best bet would be to target a $300 price point imo.
The NX can easily be more powerful than the PS4 at a $349.99 price tag, even $299.99 if Nintendo doesn't mind breaking even, or taking a semi loss initially per unit.
Original Wii to Wii U proves that an underpowered Nintendo console with lackluster support can only sell well if the gimmick attracts the mainstream audience.
Originally Wii's success was a fluke, not the norm. Nintendo should prioritize on releasing a capable console, at an attractive price, with solid third party support and AAA Nintendo exclusives ready at launch. Also, any gimmick should be optional, not forced on the user.
Sure, but I disagree that matching/slightly beating PS4 would be underpowered, at least in the same sense as Wii and Wii U were. And no, it's not possible to double PS4's power at $350 without a huge loss per unit. If that were the case, XBox One would be $250 by now since they rally want to catch up to PS4.
For 2X GPU, PS4K only needs R7-265/7850 price segment replacement with Polaris improvements e.g. R7-465/R9-470/R9-470X to replace 7850/R7-265/7870/R9-370/R9-370X price segment SKUs.
XBO's 365 mm^2 chip area size is larger than PS4's 348 mm^2 chip area size and PS4 has a larger economic of scale than XBO. It would be difficult for MS to engage in a price war against PS4
You're making a lot of assumptions on pricing here... Anyway, I don't see how being 4 years late with a $400+ console that you're losing $50-100 on while also being much larger than other consoles will help sales very much. I really don't know why so many of you feel that power is the #1 thing people buy consoles for. What would this powerful, expensive console offer over anything? You can spend less on a PS4, or you can get more games with a PS4k. It doesn't really work out either way, and their best bet would be to target a $300 price point imo.
The NX can easily be more powerful than the PS4 at a $349.99 price tag, even $299.99 if Nintendo doesn't mind breaking even, or taking a semi loss initially per unit.
Original Wii to Wii U proves that an underpowered Nintendo console with lackluster support can only sell well if the gimmick attracts the mainstream audience.
Originally Wii's success was a fluke, not the norm. Nintendo should prioritize on releasing a capable console, at an attractive price, with solid third party support and AAA Nintendo exclusives ready at launch. Also, any gimmick should be optional, not forced on the user.
Sure, but I disagree that matching/slightly beating PS4 would be underpowered, at least in the same sense as Wii and Wii U were. And no, it's not possible to double PS4's power at $350 without a huge loss per unit. If that were the case, XBox One would be $250 by now since they rally want to catch up to PS4.
For 2X GPU, PS4K only needs R7-265/7850 price segment replacement with Polaris improvements e.g. R7-465/R9-470/R9-470X to replace 7850/R7-265/7870/R9-370/R9-370X price segment SKUs.
XBO's 365 mm^2 chip area size is larger than PS4's 348 mm^2 chip area size and PS4 has a larger economic of scale than XBO. It would be difficult for MS to engage in a price war against PS4
Is it at all possible for Nintendo to release the NX in late 2016 that is around 2x stronger than PS4 at a price point of $349.99 without having to take huge hit per unit sold? Or would Nintendo have to wait for a late 2017 release?
Wii = Somewhere between GC and Xbox capability wise.
Wii > GC > Xbox
http://www.purevideogames.net/blog/?p=479
The Wii is not more powerful than the OG Xbox. It doesn't even have programmable shader support. Also, there were 720p games on the OG Xbox as well. There isn't a single 720p game on the original Wii.
Wii = Somewhere between GC and Xbox capability wise.
Wii > GC > Xbox
http://www.purevideogames.net/blog/?p=479
The Wii is not more powerful than the OG Xbox. It doesn't even have programmable shader support.
That is an obscenely lazy reply, read the link or don't bother.
Anything the Xbox could do the gamecube could with its TEV pipeline, it was just trickier. I know right in the first few paragraphs of that link it says Rogue squadron had bump mapping and various other techniques that would've required programmable shaders without the use of TEV.
Wii = Somewhere between GC and Xbox capability wise.
Wii > GC > Xbox
http://www.purevideogames.net/blog/?p=479
The Wii is not more powerful than the OG Xbox. It doesn't even have programmable shader support.
That is an obscenely lazy reply, read the link or don't bother.
Anything the Xbox could do the gamecube could with its TEV pipeline, it was just trickier. I know right in the first few paragraphs of that link it says Rogue squadron had bump mapping and various other techniques that would've required programmable shaders without the use of TEV.
The fact is the Wii was held back by fixed shader functions. No Wii game exceeded Butcher Bay, NG: Black, Half Life 2 or Doom 3 on a technical front. Please show me a single Wii game that is technically visually superior as the games I listed above.
Now had the Wii been given programmable shader functions it definitely would have creamed the OG Xbox.
The NX can easily be more powerful than the PS4 at a $349.99 price tag, even $299.99 if Nintendo doesn't mind breaking even, or taking a semi loss initially per unit.
Original Wii to Wii U proves that an underpowered Nintendo console with lackluster support can only sell well if the gimmick attracts the mainstream audience.
Originally Wii's success was a fluke, not the norm. Nintendo should prioritize on releasing a capable console, at an attractive price, with solid third party support and AAA Nintendo exclusives ready at launch. Also, any gimmick should be optional, not forced on the user.
Sure, but I disagree that matching/slightly beating PS4 would be underpowered, at least in the same sense as Wii and Wii U were. And no, it's not possible to double PS4's power at $350 without a huge loss per unit. If that were the case, XBox One would be $250 by now since they rally want to catch up to PS4.
For 2X GPU, PS4K only needs R7-265/7850 price segment replacement with Polaris improvements e.g. R7-465/R9-470/R9-470X to replace 7850/R7-265/7870/R9-370/R9-370X price segment SKUs.
XBO's 365 mm^2 chip area size is larger than PS4's 348 mm^2 chip area size and PS4 has a larger economic of scale than XBO. It would be difficult for MS to engage in a price war against PS4
Is it at all possible for Nintendo to release the NX in late 2016 that is around 2x stronger than PS4 at a price point of $349.99 without having to take huge hit per unit sold? Or would Nintendo have to wait for a late 2017 release?
It depends on the CPU selected.
Jaguar CPU area size with 28 nm Planar: 3.1 mm^2 x 8 = 24.8 mm^2
Puma CPU area size with FInFET : (3.10 mm ^2 x 8 CPU cores) / 2 FinFET density = 12.4 mm^2.
Sure, but I disagree that matching/slightly beating PS4 would be underpowered, at least in the same sense as Wii and Wii U were. And no, it's not possible to double PS4's power at $350 without a huge loss per unit. If that were the case, XBox One would be $250 by now since they rally want to catch up to PS4.
For 2X GPU, PS4K only needs R7-265/7850 price segment replacement with Polaris improvements e.g. R7-465/R9-470/R9-470X to replace 7850/R7-265/7870/R9-370/R9-370X price segment SKUs.
XBO's 365 mm^2 chip area size is larger than PS4's 348 mm^2 chip area size and PS4 has a larger economic of scale than XBO. It would be difficult for MS to engage in a price war against PS4
Is it at all possible for Nintendo to release the NX in late 2016 that is around 2x stronger than PS4 at a price point of $349.99 without having to take huge hit per unit sold? Or would Nintendo have to wait for a late 2017 release?
It depends on the CPU selected.
Jaguar CPU area size with 28 nm Planar: 3.1 mm^2 x 8 = 24.8 mm^2
Puma CPU area size with FInFET : (3.10 mm ^2 x 8 CPU cores) / 2 FinFET density = 12.4 mm^2.
Total SoC area size: 312.4 mm^2, Still smaller than PS4's SoC 348 mm^2.
AMD ZEN's chip area size is unknown, but the mobile version replaces Jaguar.
For comparison
Cortex-A7: 0.45mm²
Jaguar: 3.1mm²
Bobcat: 4.6mm²
Cyclone: ~ 5mm²
Denver: ~ 5.4mm²
CloverTrail: 5.6mm²
Haswell: 14.5mm²
Excavator: 14.5mm²
Bulldozer: 18mm²
Sandy Bridge: 18.4mm²
Steamroller: 19.4mm²
Well if they really want to bridge their handheld and consoles together then I see them going with A72 cores. Unless AMD can find a way to implement one of their X86 cores into a handheld form factor. I just don't see Nintendo having two different architectures moving forward. Iwata stated that, "Our next generation console and Handheld will be like brothers in terms of their architecture."
So, if we assume NX handheld and Console will share a similar architecture then we should think handheld scaled up for NX home console to get a good idea.
@emgesp: Lol that's the last time I ever quote you, I just think it's funny you've changed your post like 4 times and removed a link that proved my point. You're a poor troll.
@emgesp: Lol that's the last time I ever quote you, I just think it's funny you've changed your post like 4 times and removed a link that proved my point. You're a poor troll.
Yes, the Wii has some advantages over the OG Xbox, but the fixed function shaders holds it back from being able to produce games with the same level of graphical flair as the best looking Xbox games. I'll ask you again, please show me a single Wii game that graphically exceeds the Xbox games I mentioned on a technical level. It should be a relatively easy task for you given you think everything I've been saying is false.
Wii = Somewhere between GC and Xbox capability wise.
Wii > GC > Xbox
http://www.purevideogames.net/blog/?p=479
I'm calling BS. I was a Nintendo fanboy back then, I have all three of those consoles, and the GameCube did not produce results as well as the Xbox, maybe down to the extra resources like using full sized DVD, larger RAM and a HDD (less limitations or bottlenecks for GPU), but games in general looked better on Xbox. All the multiplats were also best on Xbox.
And there's something wrong with the GPU in the Wii and GC, it's ability to perform a decent rate of anti-aliasing is poor. That alone would make games a lot more acceptable.
In terms of CPU, I'll give it that the Xbox probably had the worst.
It's not about comparing facts anymore, that's all theory. Comparing the games, is the proof, Xbox had better looking games.
Wii = Somewhere between GC and Xbox capability wise.
Wii > GC > Xbox
http://www.purevideogames.net/blog/?p=479
I'm calling BS. I was a Nintendo fanboy back then, I have all three of those consoles, and the GameCube did not produce results as well as the Xbox, maybe down to the extra resources like using full sized DVD, larger RAM and a HDD (less limitations or bottlenecks for GPU), but games in general looked better on Xbox. All the multiplats were also best on Xbox.
And there's something wrong with the GPU in the Wii and GC, it's ability to perform a decent rate of anti-aliasing is poor. That alone would make games a lot more acceptable.
In terms of CPU, I'll give it that the Xbox probably had the worst.
It's not about comparing facts anymore, that's all theory. Comparing the games, is the proof, Xbox had better looking games.
Yep, can't argue with what is shown on the screen. OG Xbox had the superior looking games on a technical front.
Well if they really want to bridge their handheld and consoles together then I see them going with A72 cores. Unless AMD can find a way to implement one of their X86 cores into a handheld form factor. I just don't see Nintendo having two different architectures moving forward. Iwata stated that, "Our next generation console and Handheld will be like brothers in terms of their architecture."
So, if we assume NX handheld and Console will share a similar architecture then we should think handheld scaled up for NX home console to get a good idea.
As promised, I've decided to share some more NX information with you. This is second-hand information from trusted sources (like last time) and I have little reason to doubt its validity.
Here you go:
x86 architecture.
Backup data to Nintendo server (most likely My Nintendo).
Support for additional screen.
Can handle ports of current-gen games.
Will be able to interact with smartdevice apps.
Using NX software will unlock My Nintendo reward points.
Well if they really want to bridge their handheld and consoles together then I see them going with A72 cores. Unless AMD can find a way to implement one of their X86 cores into a handheld form factor. I just don't see Nintendo having two different architectures moving forward. Iwata stated that, "Our next generation console and Handheld will be like brothers in terms of their architecture."
So, if we assume NX handheld and Console will share a similar architecture then we should think handheld scaled up for NX home console to get a good idea.
As promised, I've decided to share some more NX information with you. This is second-hand information from trusted sources (like last time) and I have little reason to doubt its validity.
Here you go:
x86 architecture.
Backup data to Nintendo server (most likely My Nintendo).
Support for additional screen.
Can handle ports of current-gen games.
Will be able to interact with smartdevice apps.
Using NX software will unlock My Nintendo reward points.
Wii = Somewhere between GC and Xbox capability wise.
Wii > GC > Xbox
http://www.purevideogames.net/blog/?p=479
I'm calling BS. I was a Nintendo fanboy back then, I have all three of those consoles, and the GameCube did not produce results as well as the Xbox, maybe down to the extra resources like using full sized DVD, larger RAM and a HDD (less limitations or bottlenecks for GPU), but games in general looked better on Xbox. All the multiplats were also best on Xbox.
And there's something wrong with the GPU in the Wii and GC, it's ability to perform a decent rate of anti-aliasing is poor. That alone would make games a lot more acceptable.
In terms of CPU, I'll give it that the Xbox probably had the worst.
It's not about comparing facts anymore, that's all theory. Comparing the games, is the proof, Xbox had better looking games.
Look I can't convince you gamecube games looked better if you've played all these games, but it is about the facts. In that link there is the evidence that the memory system and cpu are superior, and that the gamecube could do anything Xbox could even with its programmable shaders. Besides the shader pipelines, which gpu between GC and Xbox is the better one is arguable though. Xbox has some advantages like an extra vertex pipeline and higher clockspeed, but gamecube could do more texture and lighting effects per pass. Xbox might well have the better gpu, but it's pretty close.
What it comes down to with gamecube I think is the better cpu (which is what sets up the gpu to draw polygons, hence the 15 million per second in rogue squadron 2, or the 20 million in rebel strike) and the higher bandwidth, low latency memory in the gamecube.
Xbox was a powerful console with good games, Ninja gaiden, panzer dragoon orta and Conker are some amazing looking games. But with regards to Conker, you have star fox adventures running on gamecube with all the effects in that game like fur shading and reflections, but at twice the frame rate. Granted Conker is more detailed, but I don't think it's so much that it justifies half the frames. Resident evil 4 is the best looking "realistic" game from that generation. I would say gamecube has just a slight advantage over Xbox, and with the mini discs all it took was an extra disc or some compression and problem solved. Plus with those discs, the gamecube also loaded games faster than Xbox even with its HDD.
The Wii vs. Xbox? Shouldn't even be an argument. I do know what you're talking about with the AA though.
Wii = Somewhere between GC and Xbox capability wise.
Wii > GC > Xbox
http://www.purevideogames.net/blog/?p=479
I'm calling BS. I was a Nintendo fanboy back then, I have all three of those consoles, and the GameCube did not produce results as well as the Xbox, maybe down to the extra resources like using full sized DVD, larger RAM and a HDD (less limitations or bottlenecks for GPU), but games in general looked better on Xbox. All the multiplats were also best on Xbox.
And there's something wrong with the GPU in the Wii and GC, it's ability to perform a decent rate of anti-aliasing is poor. That alone would make games a lot more acceptable.
In terms of CPU, I'll give it that the Xbox probably had the worst.
It's not about comparing facts anymore, that's all theory. Comparing the games, is the proof, Xbox had better looking games.
Look I can't convince you gamecube games looked better if you've played all these games, but it is about the facts. In that link there is the evidence that the memory system and cpu are superior, and that the gamecube could do anything Xbox could even with its programmable shaders. Besides the shader pipelines, which gpu between GC and Xbox is the better one is arguable though. Xbox has some advantages like an extra vertex pipeline and higher clockspeed, but gamecube could do more texture and lighting effects per pass. Xbox might well have the better gpu, but it's pretty close.
What it comes down to with gamecube I think is the better cpu (which is what sets up the gpu to draw polygons, hence the 15 million per second in rogue squadron 2, or the 20 million in rebel strike) and the higher bandwidth, low latency memory in the gamecube.
Xbox was a powerful console with good games, Ninja gaiden, panzer dragoon orta and Conker are some amazing looking games. But with regards to Conker, you have star fox adventures running on gamecube with all the effects in that game like fur shading and reflections, but at twice the frame rate. Granted Conker is more detailed, but I don't think it's so much that it justifies half the frames. Resident evil 4 is the best looking "realistic" game from that generation. I would say gamecube has just a slight advantage over Xbox, and with the mini discs all it took was an extra disc or some compression and problem solved. Plus with those discs, the gamecube also loaded games faster than Xbox even with its HDD.
The Wii vs. Xbox? Shouldn't even be an argument. I do know what you're talking about with the AA though.
Well the facts are the stats and the real world performance is the games. It might not be the GPU which is particularly weak in the GC, but it is surrounded by limitations, no HDD, less RAM, limited 1.5GB media etc.
Off conversation, I still occasionally play Wii and GC games today though. You mention Rogue Leader, I just started playing that again this year in January and it holds up so well over the test of time, graphically, it's not bad today, but the gameplay is really fun. I forgot it was a launch game, and was really surprised when I found that out. Rebel Strike sucks though.
Well the facts are the stats and the real world performance is the games. It might not be the GPU which is particularly weak in the GC, but it is surrounded by limitations, no HDD, less RAM, limited 1.5GB media etc.
Off conversation, I still occasionally play Wii and GC games today though. You mention Rogue Leader, I just started playing that again this year in January and it holds up so well over the test of time, graphically, it's not bad today, but the gameplay is really fun. I forgot it was a launch game, and was really surprised when I found that out. Rebel Strike sucks though.
Yeah and I listed some games, and can list more, but listing games won't change minds. So it comes to the specs.
The gpu isn't weak at all, it was state of the art minus the fixed functions. It's just clocked lower. GC had less memory, but with its eDRAM it could cull a framebuffer with what Xbox needed much more memory to do. In practice their memory amounts pretty much amount to the same thing, but it's faster in the GC. HDD, doesn't matter since its only benefit is streaming data from the disc, so that helps load times but nothing else. But the mini discs simply load faster anyway because the laser doesn't have to search far to find the data. The storage size was a very minor issue and the very few multiplats you'll find where something was taken out, it's like an bonus fmv video or something. There's actually a bigger difference between blu ray and 360's dvd sizes.
Anyway...
Oh yeah, RS2 is definitely better since it just sticks to the flight stuff, rebel strike should've stuck to that.
Nintendo should take a hit per unit sold. Not saying PS3 level hit, but a hit nonetheless, just to insure that the NX can be as powerful as possible within reason.
Like I said before if the NX is just a XB1, or PS4 with a gimmicky controller its gonna flop just like the Wii U. If someone wants a PS4 level console in late 2016 then they will just buy a PS4 for cheaper. It makes no sense for the NX not to be at least 2x more capable than the competition.
Not to mention you have the PS4K potentially getting announced at E3. That's gonna really hurt the NX's reveal if the PS4K offers more value for around the same price. NX is not likely to have a 4K Blu-ray player.
You're making a lot of assumptions on pricing here... Anyway, I don't see how being 4 years late with a $400+ console that you're losing $50-100 on while also being much larger than other consoles will help sales very much. I really don't know why so many of you feel that power is the #1 thing people buy consoles for. What would this powerful, expensive console offer over anything? You can spend less on a PS4, or you can get more games with a PS4k. It doesn't really work out either way, and their best bet would be to target a $300 price point imo.
The NX can easily be more powerful than the PS4 at a $349.99 price tag, even $299.99 if Nintendo doesn't mind breaking even, or taking a semi loss initially per unit.
Original Wii to Wii U proves that an underpowered Nintendo console with lackluster support can only sell well if the gimmick attracts the mainstream audience.
Originally Wii's success was a fluke, not the norm. Nintendo should prioritize on releasing a capable console, at an attractive price, with solid third party support and AAA Nintendo exclusives ready at launch. Also, any gimmick should be optional, not forced on the user.
Sure, but I disagree that matching/slightly beating PS4 would be underpowered, at least in the same sense as Wii and Wii U were. And no, it's not possible to double PS4's power at $350 without a huge loss per unit. If that were the case, XBox One would be $250 by now since they rally want to catch up to PS4.
Name me another console besides the original Wii that was successful while being only about as powerful as the previous generation consoles. Remember the NX is going to be a 9th generation console, not 8th generation.
That's actually a rhetorical question because no such console exists outside the original Wii. Here's a list of the top selling consoles per generation.
Atari 2600 = More powerful than Maganvox Odyssey
NES = More powerful than all 2nd gen consoles.
SNES = More Powerful than all 3rd generation consoles.
PS1 = More powerful than all 4th generation consoles.
PS2 = More powerful than every 5th generation console.
Wii = Somewhere between GC and Xbox capability wise.
PS4 = More powerful than every 7th gen console.
As you can see finding success during a new generation with previous generation power only worked once. The NX isn't going to be more successful than the Wii U unless it has a WiiMote level gimmick that attracts the mainstream, or it has hardware capabilities that are noticeably superior to 8th gen consoles.
Now if Nintendo is going to market the NX as a secondary console then it needs to be priced accordingly. I think $199.99 - $249.99 would be a reasonable price point for a Nintendo delivery system, but even then I don't see it selling more than 20 - 25 million units. And no I don't think 20 - 25 million units sold per generation going forward is adequate enough to sustain a console business on.
NX isn't competing against 9th generation consoles, though (at least not yet, but there's nothing that Nintendo could reasonably do to make NX competitive with 9th-gen, to the point that I don't think it even makes much sense to call it 9th-gen). Also, you're defining "successful" as "winning the generation" here, clearly. What matters is being competitive for most of its life. And you're right, $200 is the ideal price point for it. The fact of the matter is that going expensive just to get more power has no benefit to them. Give me one reason that someone would choose NX over PS4k if both are the same price and have the same level of power other than that they're a Nintendo fan. Hint: you won't be able to find one. Power would only possibly help them if they were much more powerful than the PS4k for the same price, and even then I'd think that PS4's library would be a bigger selling point. Here's the simple truth: There's nothing that Nintendo can do to make NX a true success this generation other than maybe making it extremely cheap at the expense of power. In the real world, power has never been a defining selling point for a console other than maybe PS4, and even then the price was likely the bigger factor. If Nintendo wants to continue making consoles, they need to focus on steadying the ship, not going in at full speed while throwing caution to the wind. Thus, they only really have two choices: go super cheap/weak and focus on being a Nintendo box going forward, or use NX as a springboard to revive third-party support so that they stand a chance in actual 9th generation with the console after NX. Anything else is, frankly, a waste of time. I think the reason we don't see eye-to-eye is that you think the reason Wii U flopped was mainly due to being too weak, when really it wasn't even the biggest issue (marketing and price were much bigger).
Also, don't listen to ronvalencia. He's just making a bunch of assumptions based on what he thinks will happen and is possible. He might seem intelligent due to the way that he seemingly backs everything he says up, but he really doesn't know what he's talking about at all. There's nothing that Nintendo could do to get a console out that's twice as powerful as PS4 for under $400 this year unless they go as barebones as possible and take a significant loss (enough that they'll need to sell 2-3 games with every single console) on top of having huge shortages due to yields. Next year it would be possible without the shortages, but they'd still need at least two games sold with every system to profit. However, they'd be competing with an even stronger PS4/XBO library and still wouldn't have any real selling selling point other than their own games.
NX isn't competing against 9th generation consoles, though (at least not yet, but there's nothing that Nintendo could reasonably do to make NX competitive with 9th-gen, to the point that I don't think it even makes much sense to call it 9th-gen). Also, you're defining "successful" as "winning the generation" here, clearly. What matters is being competitive for most of its life. And you're right, $200 is the ideal price point for it. The fact of the matter is that going expensive just to get more power has no benefit to them. Give me one reason that someone would choose NX over PS4k if both are the same price and have the same level of power other than that they're a Nintendo fan. Hint: you won't be able to find one. Power would only possibly help them if they were much more powerful than the PS4k for the same price, and even then I'd think that PS4's library would be a bigger selling point. Here's the simple truth: There's nothing that Nintendo can do to make NX a true success this generation other than maybe making it extremely cheap at the expense of power. In the real world, power has never been a defining selling point for a console other than maybe PS4, and even then the price was likely the bigger factor. If Nintendo wants to continue making consoles, they need to focus on steadying the ship, not going in at full speed while throwing caution to the wind. Thus, they only really have two choices: go super cheap/weak and focus on being a Nintendo box going forward, or use NX as a springboard to revive third-party support so that they stand a chance in actual 9th generation with the console after NX. Anything else is, frankly, a waste of time. I think the reason we don't see eye-to-eye is that you think the reason Wii U flopped was mainly due to being too weak, when really it wasn't even the biggest issue (marketing and price were much bigger).
Also, don't listen to ronvalencia. He's just making a bunch of assumptions based on what he thinks will happen and is possible. He might seem intelligent due to the way that he seemingly backs everything he says up, but he really doesn't know what he's talking about at all. There's nothing that Nintendo could do to get a console out that's twice as powerful as PS4 for under $400 this year unless they go as barebones as possible and take a significant loss (enough that they'll need to sell 2-3 games with every single console) on top of having huge shortages due to yields. Next year it would be possible without the shortages, but they'd still need at least two games sold with every system to profit. However, they'd be competing with an even stronger PS4/XBO library and still wouldn't have any real selling selling point other than their own games.
The Wii U flopped because its gimmick wasn't enticing enough and the price was way too high for what it offered. All the greatest marketing in the world wouldn't have made that Wii U pad any better.
Like I said before if Nintendo is just planning on making the NX a great secondary console then it needs to be super cheap. The vast majority aren't going to pay $299.99+ for a secondary console. The Wii U has pretty much proved this to be the case.
The first benchmark of an AMD Summit Ridge (Zen) CPU got leaked. At 3Ghz, it is 4x faster than a 4Ghz i7-6700k. Not even a 20 core Intel Xeon can match it.. AMD may finally take the crown back from Intel (:
This shows us nothing, AIDA 64 does VERY SPECIFIC benchmarks, nothing real world, the best ones to test with are Super PI and Cinebench.
Log in to comment